STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

Appeal of Mary Dowling }

}

}

}

}

Docket Nos. 179-8-02 Vtec; 

235-10-02 Vtec; and 269-12-

02 Vtec

Decision and Order

Appellant Mary Dowling appealed from two decisions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment 

(ZBA) and one decision of the Planning Commission of the Town of Stowe, granting approval

for two projects within the Topnotch Resort Planned Unit Development. Appellee-Applicant 

T.N. Associates, Inc., doing business as Topnotch, also appealed from one of the findings made 

by the Planning Commission in its decision.

Appellant Mary Dowling is represented by George E.H. Gay, Esq.; Appellee-Applicant T.N. 

Associates, Inc., doing business as Topnotch, is represented by David Gartenstein, Esq.; the 

Town of Stowe is represented by Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. An evidentiary hearing was held in 

this matter before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. The parties were given the 

opportunity to submit written requests for findings and memoranda of law. Upon consideration 

of the evidence and the written memoranda and proposed findings, the Court finds and concludes 

as follows.

Appellee-Applicant owns and operates a 110-acre Resort Planned Unit Development (the A

Topnotch Resort PUD@ ), consisting of land on both sides of Route 108 in the Upper Mountain 

Road zoning district and the RR5 zoning district of the Town of Stowe. The main Topnotch Inn 

buildings are located on the east side of and uphill from Route 108, approximately 75 feet from 

the southerly property boundary of the overall Topnotch Resort PUD property. A parking lot 

referred to as the A east@ parking lot is located easterly of the Inn building adjacent to the 

southerly property line. Appellant owns property immediately to the south of and generally 

downhill from the Topnotch Resort PUD property. The property line between Appellant= s 

property and the Topnotch Resort PUD property makes a rectangular jog approximately 150 feet 

in length along the property line and approximately 50 feet in depth onto what would otherwise 

be Appellant= s property. This jog accommodates the southerly most end of the east parking lot, 

and contains fourteen of the lot= s parking spaces. The property line contained this jog and the 

east parking lot when Appellant acquired the property. Appellant has experienced serious 

problems from time to time in the past with stormwater drainage from the Topnotch Resort PUD 

property, and especially from the east parking lot, onto her property. 

Appellee-Applicant applied for approval to develop two projects: the > Spa/Laundry= project and 

the > Phase F Condominiums,= accompanied by changes to Appellee-Applicant= s stormwater 

management system, all within Appellee-Applicant= s existing approved Resort PUD. The 
Topnotch Resort PUD, including these two projects, is now served by municipal sewer service 

and water supplies.

As an amendment to a conditional use, the Spa/Laundry project required review under the 

following sections of the Zoning Regulations: ' 4.7 (Conditional Use Standards), ' 4.9 (Site Plan 

Review), ' 7.3(2) through (4) (Upper Mountain Road) and ' 18.3 (Resort PUD). The ZBA= s 

July 16, 2002 decision on this application is on appeal in Docket No. 179-8-02 Vtec. As a 

subdivision, the Phase F Condominiums project required review by the Planning Commission for 

final subdivision approval under the Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Commission= s 

September 24, 2002 decision on this application is on appeal in Docket No. 235-10-02Vtec. As 

an amendment to a conditional use, the Phase F Condominium project also required review 

under the following sections of the Zoning Regulations: ' 4.7 (Conditional Use Standards), ' 4.9 

(Site Plan Review), ' 7.3(2) through (4) (Upper Mountain Road) and ' 18.3 (Resort PUD). The 

ZBA= s October 15, 2002 decision on this application is on appeal in Docket No. 269-12-02 

Vtec.

At trial, Appellant stipulated that only the following provisions of the Zoning Regulations remain 

at issue in these proceedings: 

Conditional Use Standards: ' 4.7(2)(A)(3) (character of the area affected); ' 4.7(2)(B)(1) (soil 

erosion and capacity of land to hold water), ' 4.7(2)(B)(2) (aesthetics and natural areas), '

4.7(2)(B)(5) (shared access), ' 4.7(2)(B)(6) (circulation and parking), ' 4.7(2)(B)(7) (pedestrian 

circulation and access), ' 4.7(2)(B)(8) (landscaping and screening), and ' 4.7(2)(B)(9) 

(stormwater management);

Site Development Plan Required Information: ' 4.8(2) (landscaping plan), ' 4.8(3) (parking 

plan), ' 4.8(4) (stormwater drainage plan), ' 4.8(5) (site grading plan), ' 4.8(6) (lighting plan), 

and ' 4.8(7) (completion schedule); 

Site Development Plan Review Procedure: ' 4.9(1)(A) (compatibility with municipal plan), '

4.9(1)(B) (adequacy of driveway access), ' 4.9(1)(D) (circulation and parking), ' 4.9(1)(F) 

(landscaping and screening), ' 4.9(1)(G) (stormwater management); 4.9(2)(B)(2) (parking 

specific to Upper Mountain Road zoning district) and 4.9(2)(B)(3) (driveway access specific to 

Upper Mountain Road zoning district); 

Stormwater Management Standards: ' 4.15 (all subsections);

Standards for Development in the Upper Mountain Road District: ' 7.1 (purpose statement: A

preserving the rural character of the landscape@ ); ' 7.7(2) (driveway setbacks);

Standards for Planned Unit Developments: ' 18.3(1)(A) (amended density affidavits); '

18.3(3)(A) (perimeter greenbelt), ' 18.3(3)(B)(incorporating PRD standards from ' 17.3(2), '

17.3(3), and ' 17.3(4)); ' 18.3(4) (open space); and
Parking Standards: ' 21.3 (required parking area); ' 21.4(1) (no parking in fire lanes), ' 21.4(4) 

(stormwater discharge from parking surfaces onto adjacent property); and ' 21.5 (driveway 

setbacks).

Appellant also stipulated at trial that only the following provisions of the Subdivision 

Regulations remain at issue in these proceedings:

Subdivision Application Procedures: ' 3.1(1);

Preliminary Layout Application Procedures: ' 3.3(1), ' 3.3(3), ' 3.3(4);

Preliminary Layout Application Submission Requirements: ' 4.1(L), ' 4.1(P); 

Final Subdivision Application Submission Requirements: ' 4.2(H), ' 4.2(I);

Legal Requirements: ' 4.4(1)(B), ' 4.4(1)(C); 

General Planning Standards: ' 5.1(1) (character of land for subdivision), ' 5.1(2) (natural and 

scenic features), ' 5.1(5)(screening and landscaping), ' 5.1(13) (disclosure of subsequent 

development plans); 

Open Space and Cluster Development: ' 5.3 (all subsections); and

Utilities and Stormwater Management: ' 5.5(4), ' 5.5(5).

The Spa/Laundry project involves the expansion of the spa building by 6,835 square feet to 

house new treatment rooms, an expanded hair salon, a new front entrance and an office; the 

relocation of Appellee-Applicant= s laundry facilities to a new 960-square-foot building across 

Route 108 behind the tennis center; the conversion of an existing tennis court to a parking area; 

and the rerouting of stormwater from the east parking lot to an existing treatment and detention 

pond.

A 53-unit, 29.4-acre condominium development (the A Overlook Condominiums at Topnotch 

Resort@ ) was approved in 1981 as a Planned Residential Development (PRD), located within the 

Topnotch Resort PUD. The ten units now proposed for the Phase F condominiums will complete 

52 of the 53 approved units. The major infrastructure for the Phase F Condominiums, including 

water and sewer mains and a looped access road, has already been built pursuant to the plans 

previously approved for the whole Planned Residential Development. The current Phase F 

Condominium Project includes the subdivision of the land where the Phase F Condominium 

buildings will be located, so that the boundary lines run along the border of the Open Space area 

approved in 1981 as part of the Planned Residential Development and along the boundary lines 

of previous subdivisions for earlier phases of development within the PRD. The Phase F 

Condominium Project also includes the installation of 520 feet of 8-inch water line running from 

Route 108 to behind the spa building and a fire hydrant to improve fire protection1; the 

construction of five buildings each containing two condominium units, for a total of ten units, 

including the site work specific to each building needed to connect the buildings to the existing 
PRD infrastructure; and the implementation of a stormwater management plan that directs most 

of the stormwater generated on the developed portion of the Appellee-Applicant= s property 

easterly of and uphill from Route 108 to an already existing detention pond located close to 

Route 108. 

Issue regarding Post-Approval Submission Conditions

Appellant= s Amended Statement of Questions raised the issue of whether certain conditions, 

requiring subsequent proposals to be submitted to the ZBA, violated various notice requirements. 

As the application now contains those amendments and this proceeding is de novo, that issue has 

become moot, or at least provides no basis for remanding the application to the ZBA. The Court 

will merely consider the updated parking plan, the elevations and fenestration of the spa and 

laundry, the landscaping and exterior lighting plan, an updated density bank affidavit, and the 

amended application (including both the stormwater run-off pipe line and conversion of the 

upper tennis court to parking) as part of the merits of the application now before the Court. In 

any event, the matters that were the subject of the contested conditions had been addressed in 

Appellee-Applicant= s original application submitted to the ZBA. The contested conditions 

merely required the Applicant to submit, in written or plan form, those details or commitments 

on the part of the Applicant that were discussed before the ZBA at its public hearing and that had 

become part of the ZBA= s approval of the project. See Appeal of Gulli, 13 Vt. L. Week 349, 350 

(Nov. 4, 2002) (mem.).

Character of Area, Suitability of Land and Compatibility with Stowe Town Plan

Section 4.7(2)(A)(3), ' 4.9(1)(A) and ' 7.1 of the Zoning Regulations and ' 5.1(1) of the 

Subdivision Regulations address whether the proposed projects will adversely affect the 

character of the area; whether they will preserve the rural character of the upper Mountain Road 

area landscape; whether the subdivided land can be used for its intended purposes without undue 

adverse impact on public health or safety, the environment, neighboring properties, or the rural 

and historic character of the community; and whether the proposed projects are compatible with 

the Stowe Municipal Plan.

As designed, the subdivided land can be used for its intended purposes without undue adverse 

impact upon Appellant= s property or upon any other neighboring properties, or upon public 

health or safety, the environment, or the rural and historic character of the community. The 

proposed improvements to the stormwater systems draining the Topnotch Resort PUD and the 

proposed improvements to the drainage and landscaping of the east parking lot will reduce the 

stormwater runoff onto Appellant= s property to an amount below that experienced by that 

property before the Topnotch Resort PUD was developed, and will therefore reduce the 

likelihood of recurrence of the problems experienced by Appellant in recent years due to 

stormwater runoff onto her property. The proposed erosion control measures during construction 

will protect downhill property, including Appellant= s, from undue soil erosion. Appellant 

proposes to install the new stormwater improvements starting with the pond and the 

improvements to the Inn parking lot, and then to install the stormwater line from the Inn to the 

pond, and then to install the stormwater line above the Inn, and then to install the new 8" water 
line. All the stormwater system improvements are proposed to be in place before the construction 

of the Phase F condominiums.

The proposed expansion of the existing spa building and conversion of a tennis court to parking 

will not be noticeable from Route 108 or from beyond the Topnotch Resort PUD property. The 

proposed small new laundry building behind the large tennis center on the other side of Route 

108 will not be noticeable from Route 108 or from beyond the Topnotch Resort PUD property, 

and would have the appearance of a small outbuilding consistent with the design of the tennis 

center building and another small maintenance shed behind that building. The proposed Phase F 

condominiums are consistent in design, location, and layout with the other condominiums 

approved as part of the PRD. Therefore, the proposed projects will not adversely affect the 

character of the area, will not adversely affect the rural and historic character of the community 

and will preserve the rural character of the upper Mountain Road area landscape at least as much 

as the existing Topnotch Resort PUD.

In addition, the proposed projects are compatible with the current edition of the Stowe Municipal 

Plan. The expansion of the spa building, relocation of the laundry, and associated improvements 

to the stormwater and parking systems for the Topnotch Resort PUD are compatible with the 

Municipal Plan= s provision for Resort PUDs to A allow a large resort, being a self-contained 

complex developed as a single entity to provide housing (hotel/motel, lodge), recreation and 

services for its transient guests, and be insulated from, and not intrude on, surrounding areas.@

Municipal Plan, page 10-8. The Plan encourages clustering development, and favors Planned 

Residential Development over standard subdivisions A to enable and encourage flexibility of 

development of land to preserve open space, to encourage clustering and to facilitate adequate 

and economical provision for streets and utilities.@ Municipal Plan, page 10-8. The Phase F 

condominiums, approved as part of a Planned Residential Development, are compatible with the 

Municipal Plan in that respect, and preserve all of the open space area reserved within the PRD 

and the Topnotch Resort PUD.

Access and On-site Circulation

Section 4.7(2)(B)(5), ' 4.7(2)(B)(7), ' 4.9(1)(B), ' 4.9(2)(B)(3), and ' 7.7(2), of the Zoning 

Regulations address on-site circulation and access from the public road system.

No changes in the Topnotch Resort PUD= s access to Route 108 are proposed in connection with 

the proposed projects. That easterly entrance point from Route 108 is adequate under ' 4.9(1)(B) 

as approved for the overall Topnotch Resort PUD, and the relatively small number of additional 

vehicle trips generated by the ten new condominium units will not affect the adequacy of that 

access. Adding shared access for the Dowling property to the existing single access from Route 

108 onto the Topnotch Resort PUD property would not be appropriate under ' 4.7(2)(B)(5). 

Adding shared access is not practicable with either the property to the north or with the property 

to the south, because a stream separates the Topnotch Resort PUD entrance drive from the 

property to its north and because steep grades prevent shared access to that entrance drive with 

the adjacent property to the south.
Pedestrian circulation and access as previously approved for the Topnotch Resort PUD, is 

unchanged by the proposed projects. ' 4.7(2)(B)(7). On-site circulation of vehicles as previously 

approved for the Topnotch Resort PUD will be somewhat improved under the site plan with the 

improvement of the east parking lot, the conversion of the tennis court to parking for the spa, and 

the reduction in parking congestion near the entrance to the spa.

The only added driveways as part of the proposed projects are the individual interior driveways 

within the PRD area needed to serve the ten individual units of the Phase F Condominiums. They 

are no wider than that necessary to provide safe vehicular access and promote pedestrian 

circulation, ' 4.9(2)(B)(3). In any event, that section only applies to the Upper Mountain Road 

zoning district and the Phase F condominium area is outside that district (see Exhibit 12). The 

driveways meet all dimensional standards and do not implicate ' 7.7(2), which requires 

driveways to be set back at least 10 feet from property lines.

None of the regulatory sections remain at issue which address the effect of traffic generated by 

the projects on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. In any event, very little, if any, 

additional traffic on Route 108 will be generated by the spa expansion or by the relocation of the 

laundry, because the expanded spa will continue to be used primarily by existing Topnotch 

guests and residents and the relocated laundry will continue to serve the whole Topnotch Resort 

PUD. Construction of the Phase F Condominiums is likely to generate no more than between two 

and five additional afternoon peak vehicle trips on Route 108. Existing roads, intersections and 

access points remain adequate to handle this minor amount of additional traffic, if any, that will 

be generated by the proposed projects. 

Parking

Section ' 4.7(2)(B)(6), ' 4.8(3), ' 4.9(1)(D), ' 4.9(2)(B)(2), ' 21.3, ' 21.4(1), ' 21.4(4), and '

21.5 of the Zoning Regulations address parking requirements, and are all met by AppelleeApplicant= s proposed projects.

Appellee-Applicant proposes improvements to the east parking lot, changes to the configuration 

of parking in front of the spa building, conversion of tennis courts to parking to serve the spa 

building, as well as the individual parking spaces allocated to each of the ten proposed 

condominium units, consisting of two parking spaces outside each unit and one space inside a 

garage associated with each unit. The parking associated with the condominium units meets all 

regulatory requirements. We will discuss the other parking-related proposals in more detail.

The number of parking spaces for the Topnotch Resort PUD meets the requirements of the 

regulations with the proposed changes. The small reduction in the number of spaces in front of 

the spa building will be more than offset by the conversion of an existing tennis court near the 

spa to a parking area to serve the expanded spa, together with improvements to the east parking 

lot.

Appellant requests a prohibition against parallel parking along the access road between the east 

parking lot and the expanded spa building. Appellee-Applicant does not propose any parallel 

parking along that road, and there has been no evidence that the on-site circulation and driveway 
width would be adequate for both vehicular and pedestrian circulation if such parallel parking 

were allowed. Accordingly, it will be sufficient to require Appellee-Applicant to post signs along 

the access road between the east parking lot and the first spa parking spaces, stating to the effect 

of > no parking along this roadway.= In the alternative, if Appellee-Applicant wishes to allow 

such parallel parking and to have it evaluated for adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian 

circulation, Appellee-Applicant is free to apply for an amendment at the municipal level to do so.

All new parking proposed as part of the proposed projects is in the interior of the Topnotch 

Resort PUD property and cannot be seen from off site or from Route 108. None of the proposed 

parking lies between buildings and the public road, or along any public road. Rather, parking is 

located behind buildings to the extent possible, and is not proposed to be situated in rights-ofway. Parking associated with the proposed projects meets the dimensional requirements of the 

Zoning Regulations, including sizes, layout and numbers of parking spaces and aisle widths 

allowing the free and safe movements of vehicles using those spaces. The proposed parking will 

be paved with an all-weather surface, and the spaces will be delineated by appropriate striping. 

The edge of the paved spaces in the east parking lot are set back at least ten feet from the 

property line to Appellant= s property, meeting ' 7.7(2) assuming that section applies to parking 

spaces as well as to driveways. 

The access roadways and parking areas associated with the proposed projects will be engineered 

to drain through storm drains adequate to handle runoff from them, and will eliminate both 

standing water and excess runoff to abutting land, including that of Appellant. Specifically with 

respect to the southerly edge of the east parking lot, the slope of the land is proposed to be added 

to, to create a foot-high berm at the edge of Appellant= s property. The east parking lot and its 

southerly setback area are proposed to be graded so that the whole of the east parking lot will 

drain toward the stormwater management system= s catchbasins within the parking lot, rather 

than toward Appellant= s land, and so that any water melting from snow plowed off those spaces 

towards Appellant= s land will also run off towards the storm drainage system within the parking 

lot. The southerly setback area is proposed to be landscaped with trees for screening and erosion 

control, and to have snow fencing installed each winter to prevent snow from being plowed onto 

Appellant= s property. Appellee-Applicant proposes to remove snow from this area promptly 

after winter storm events, to minimize the effect of runoff from large snow piles. At the westerly 

edge of the jog in the parking lot, a grassy swale is designed to conduct any remaining surface 

runoff to the storm drains in the parking lot. Even if the storm drainage system in the parking lot 

were to become clogged with ice and snow, after construction the lot and access road will still be 

sloped so that any overflow runoff will run down the access road rather than onto Appellant= s 

property.

Stormwater, Erosion, Sewer, Water, and Utilities

Section 4.7(2)(B)(1), ' 4.7(2)(B)(9), ' 4.8(4), ' 4.8(5), ' 4.9(1)(G), ' 4.15(A), ' 4.15(B), '

4.15(C), ' 4.15(D), ' 4.15(E), ' 4.15(F), ' 17.3(3) and ' 17.3(4) of the Zoning Regulations and 

Section 4.1(L), ' 4.2(H), ' 4.2(I), ' 4.4(1)(B), ' 4.4(1)(C), ' 5.5(4) and ' 5.5(5) of the 

Subdivision Regulations address stormwater, erosion, sewer, water, and utilities and are all met 

by Appellee-Applicant= s proposed projects.
Construction associated with the proposed projects will yield a total of just over 1/3 of an acre of 

new impervious coverage on the Topnotch Resort PUD property. This additional coverage will 

have little or no additional effect on stormwater generation on the Topnotch Resort PUD 

property. That is, even in the absence of the new stormwater management proposals, little or no 

additional stormwater would have been directed onto Appellant= s adjoining property, and the 

proposed projects would not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduce the capacity of the land to 

hold water. ' 4.7(2)(B)(1). Nevertheless, the proposed projects include a comprehensive new 

stormwater management plan for the Topnotch Resort PUD Property to conform with the State 

stormwater regulations that took effect in August of 2002 and for evaluation under '

4.7(2)(B)(9).

The proposed stormwater management plan intercepts and collects stormwater in new 

catchbasins to be installed in the parking areas and roadways, conducted it to an existing 

detention pond near Route 108, and, after detention, discharges it onto property of the Topnotch 

Resort PUD on the other side of Route 108, to infiltrate into a recharge area under a stateapproved stormwater discharge permit. The proposed stormwater management system uses the 

best available technology to minimize off-site stormwater runoff, to increase on-site infiltration, 

to encourage natural filtration functions, to simulate natural drainage systems and detention and 

retention basins, and to minimize off-site discharge of pollutants. 

After installation of the new stormwater system, the rate of stormwater runoff will not be 

increased beyond current levels at the boundary of the property, and indeed, will be reduced 

from pre-development levels as it pertains to Appellant= s property. Prior to any development of 

the Topnotch Resort PUD property, stormwater from 1.98 acres of land within that property 

discharged to the south onto land currently owned by Dowling and Gill. Following 

implementation of the proposed stormwater management plan, stormwater from 1.34 acres of 

land within the Topnotch Resort PUD property will discharge to the south onto land owned by 

Dowling and Gill. As a result, the proposed projects will improve existing stormwater-related 

conditions towards Appellant= s property and will have no adverse impact on stormwater effects 

on Appellant= s property, any other property (including the Topnotch Resort PUD property), on 

Town highways, or on surface waters. The rate of stormwater discharge will not increase at the 

property line. The stormwater management plan associated with the proposed projects will 

protect natural drainage ways and floodwater retention areas, so that existing drainage patterns 

will not change so as to adversely affect adjoining properties.

The changes to the configuration, grading and paving of the east parking lot, described above, 

together with the new stormwater management system, are adequate to protect the Dowling 

property from being adversely affected by stormwater from the proposed projects.

In connection with the proposed projects, Appellee-Applicant also has proposed a 

comprehensive erosion control plan to be implemented during construction, to minimize and 

stabilize exposed soil, control sediment discharge and stormwater during construction, account 

for all natural and proposed contours and grading changes, and to prevent reduction in the 

capacity of the land to hold water, and thereby avoid creating a dangerous or unhealthy 

condition.
Water, noise, and air pollution will not result from the proposed projects. The proposed projects 

are served by and have received all necessary permits to connect to the municipal water and 

sewer systems, and, as discussed above, the discharge of stormwater to abutting properties will 

decrease as compared to both pre-development and current conditions. Therefore, AppelleeApplicant need not provide any detailed information regarding the location of neighboring water 

supplies and sewage disposal areas, or a report on land and soil conditions, and need not submit 

any evidence of agreements with other landowners, easements, or rights to discharge water onto 

other properties, as no such agreements are proposed to be necessary for the proposed projects. '

4.1(L), ' 4.2(H), ' 4.2( I), ' 4.4(1)(B), and ' 4.4(1)(C) of the Subdivision Regulations.

Landscaping, Screening, Lighting, Scenic and Natural Areas, Open Space

Section 4.7(2)(B)(2), ' 4.7(2)(B)(8), ' 4.8(2), ' 4.8(6), ' 4.9(1)(F), ' 17.3(2), ' 18.3(1)(A), '

18.3(3)(A), ' 18.3(3)(B), and ' 18.3(4) of the Zoning Regulations and Sections 4.1(P), ' 5.1(2), 

' 5.1(5), and ' 5.3 of the Subdivision Regulations address landscaping, screening, distances 

between buildings, density affidavits, lighting, scenic and natural areas, and open space.

The proposed projects are located within the existing Topnotch Resort PUD and the existing 

PRD governing the condominiums. None of the buildings, parking lots, or lighting associated 

with the proposed projects will be visible from Route 108 or from any other property beyond the 

Topnotch Resort PUD property. No additional lighting is proposed for the east parking lot 

beyond any lighting already approved for that lot. There are no rare or irreplaceable natural areas 

on Topnotch Resort PUD property, and the proposed projects will not adversely affect the area= s 

scenic or natural beauty, aesthetics, natural features, forest vistas, wildlife, natural resources, or 

rural landscapes. The design of the proposed projects, including the location of the additions to 

the spa building and the new laundry building in areas where there already is impervious 

coverage; the construction of the Phase F Condominium buildings adjacent to infrastructure that 

has already been approved and constructed; the placement of storm drain, water, and sewer lines; 

and the preservation of existing recreational trails, will further minimize any potential impact to 

natural features and will preserve existing natural and scenic features, bodies of water, and 

wooded areas on the Topnotch Resort PUD property, including all areas reserved as open space 

areas in the existing permits for the Topnotch Resort PUD and the Planned Residential 

Development. Within the PRD, 8.8 acres of open space land has been dedicated for conservation 

purposes, where existing natural features will be preserved; this open space land will be owned 

and managed by a condominium Area Association upon completion of the PRD

The landscaping and lighting plans for the new condominium units and the spa expansion and 

associated parking are consistent with the existing condominiums and spa building and meet all 

requirements regarding glare, lighting and landscaping. The landscaping at the edge of the east 

parking lot will screen Appellant= s property from activity in that parking lot, and no additional 

lighting is proposed for that parking lot. 

Appellee-Applicant has submitted revised density affidavits as required by the regulations. The 

distances between the Phase F condominium buildings are appropriate for clustered development 

and to preserve other portions of the property for open space use as encouraged by the Municipal 

Plan and by the PRD regulations.
Section ' 18.3(3)(A), requires a green belt perimeter of at least 200 feet along the outside 

boundary of a Resort PUD, which requirement can be waived by the Planning Commission if it 

is not necessary to protect the interests and privacy of adjoining property owners2. The overall 

layout of the Topnotch Resort PUD was approved in earlier proceedings, and if this 200-foot 

perimeter greenbelt was a requirement of Resort PUDs at that time, it was apparently waived in 

the vicinity of the east parking lot at that time. The waiver of that greenbelt requirement and the 

existence and location of the east parking lot are not before the Court in the present proceedings.

Phasing and Future Development Plans

Section 4.8(7) of the Zoning Regulations and ' ' 3.3(4) and 5.1(13) of the Subdivision 

Regulations address the time schedule for and phasing of construction and future development 

plans. Sections 3.3(1) and 3.3(3) of the Subdivision Regulations are not applicable to a 

subdivision such as the present one that creates only one new lot. Section 3.1(1) of the 

Subdivision Regulations has been satisfied as a plat regarding the proposed subdivision has been 

filed in the Stowe Land Records.

Appellee-Applicant has submitted a time schedule for construction and a phasing plan that calls 

for implementation of its stormwater management plan as soon as permits are issued. The time 

schedule and phasing plan are appropriate, as adjusted to date from when the permits become 

final. Appellee-Applicant stated at trial that construction of the Phase F condominiums would 

take place after the installation of the stormwater management system below it in elevation; we 

have imposed that requirement as a condition in this decision and order to insure that 

disturbances of the land at higher elevations do not result in stormwater runoff problems at lower 

elevations, however temporary.

This application covers only the spa/laundry project and the Phase F condominiums as described 

above. The 53rd condominium unit allowed by the earlier PRD approval would have to be the 

subject of a future application, as would any other development to be served by the stormwater 

system. Appellee-Applicant proposes no other development at this time.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Appellee-Applicant= s 

proposed projects as presented to the Court meet the requirements of the Zoning Regulations and 

Subdivision Regulations as discussed above and are HEREBY approved, with the following 

conditions.

1. Appellee-Applicant shall construct the proposed projects as shown in the application and plans 

and exhibits submitted in evidence in the proceedings before this Court, and shall provide a set 

of those documents for the files of the Town of Stowe.

2. The proposed stormwater system improvements shall be constructed prior to the 

commencement of site work on or construction of the buildings of the Phase F condominiums. 

All the berms and grading of the area adjacent to Appellant= s property shall be in place, so as to 

direct any runoff away from Appellant= s property, before the commencement of work on the 

improvements to the east parking lot, including the commencement of work on the installation of 

the stormwater system within or at a higher elevation than the east parking lot.
3. Appellee-Applicant shall post signs along the access road between the east parking lot and the 

first spa parking spaces, stating to the effect of > no parking along this roadway.= In the 

alternative, if Appellee-Applicant wishes to allow such parallel parking and to have it evaluated 

for adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, Appellee-Applicant is free to apply for an 

amendment at the municipal level to do so.

4. Any additional lighting for the east parking lot beyond any lighting already approved for that 

lot also shall be the subject of a future amendment application.

Dated at Barre, Vermont, this 16th day of October, 2003.

___________________

Merideth Wright 

Environmental Judge

Footnotes

1.

 Prior to the extension of municipal water to serve this project, water for fire protection for 

the condominiums was provided from a pond or reservoir.

2.

 An additional clause regarding this waiver provision appears to be missing from the copy of 

the regulations in evidence.